Jeremy Corbyn has divided supporters from left of center like no other since Michael Foot, another pacifist. He is the leader who was never meant to lead and did not follow the conventional route to the top and as such has frightened the establishment in his own party let alone the wider community.
Blair came to power promising change and delivered death and destruction in the Middle East and conventional politics. Weapons of Mass Destruction epitomised his dishonesty and that of the political elite.
Corbyn offers something different - honesty, integrity but also naivety and change.
Human beings "en mass" are intrinsically programmed against change. Change comes from visionaries and economic necessity and at a cost .. the early printing presses smashed to pieces, modern times technology killing jobs. Corbyn, for better or for worse represents change.
Corbyn style and appearance lacks the smart business suit, the shiny shoes and that's what we are used to .. Blair, Brown, Balls and Burnham. He also offers a socialist agenda, which is a change from our capitalist agenda that has prevailed for most of my lifetime, and that scares people because it's a change and scares the mainstream media because it threatens their profits, wealth and agenda.
But what scares a lot of labour voters, to the extent they will not vote labour is Corbyns nuclear position and that of labours.
This came up on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, while I screamed talk economy and social welfare, Marr understandably focused on Nuclear defence. Corbyn was clear that we would never under his leadership be "first strike" which I can't quibble with, after all, we would not wish to Nuke a non nuclear nation and who else is there .. USA, Russia and China would Nuke us out of existence before our cruise landed. India, Pakistan? Unlikely. Iran and North Korea .. well they are likely to be on the US agenda before ours. So a first strike option is unlikely to be relevant.
So that leaves the responder situation, would we hit back if we were under attack.
The thing about the responder option is that it is not a precision tool. It's an Old Testament option.
"An eye for an eye! A tooth for a tooth" " Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" or put another way ... you killed 10 million innocent people in our country so I'm gonna do the same to you and your innocent people". It's not an option that I think is worthy of one of the more civilised societies in the world. There is an argument that we will never use us them but if that's the case why have them?
The argument against Corbyn is not Nuclear weapons, they have not defended us against the terrorist attacks of recent years and even if we do face a dirty bomb terrorist attack in London or anywhere else then what good will Trident or son of Trident, which Labour has committed to do us?
No the argument against Corbyn, if there is one, is on the battlefields of honesty, integrity, education, health and society and when deciding who to vote for you must decide whether these are safer in Theresa Mays hands of Jeremy Corbyn's!